Carl W. Kenney II is an award winning columnist and novelist. He is committed to engaging readers into a meaningful discussion related to matters that impact faith and society. He grapples with pondering the impact faith has on public space while seeking to understand how public space both hinders and enhances the walk of faith.

Thursday, February 23, 2017

There was an interesting conversation today on the MSNB’s ‘Morning
Joe”. Joe Scarborough, host of the
popular show, was furious in explaining his angst as a former conservative college
student on a Southern campus.

He explained how liberal professors and students shape the
world view of students like Stephen Miller, now the senior advisor to President
Donald Trump. Scarborough argues students who begin their college experience
right of center embrace more radical brands of conservatism due to the attacks
they face.

Scarborough’s diatribe compelled me to consider my actions
as a college professor. I reflected on my lecture on being impartial in
reporting on subjects that strain your political position. I challenged
students to use their bias to force balance. I told them to press beyond their prejudices
to consider the other position.

It was a Summer session, and the students were witnessing
both the Republican and Democratic debates. A few students admitted allegiance
to Donald Trump. I noticed the apprehension coming from their peers.

Scarborough is correct in his assessment of what often takes
place on campuses. I noticed nonverbal movements that made Trump supporters
feel uneasy.

“How can you be effective as journalist if you can’t take
time to understand how your peers came to this conclusion,” I asked. “The story
isn’t as much about their decision. It’s more about how and why they made their
decision. Your job is to get that story.”

I felt bad for my conservative students. A few thanked me
after class. I told them not to be afraid of their views. I told them I
disagreed with those views, but, as a journalist, my job is not to judge their
position. It is to help others understand their position.

It helped that I had served a church with numerous Trump
supporters. I had to come to grips with serving a congregation with views
radically different from my own. As a minister rooted in the black faith
tradition, my understanding of ministry was different than the people I served.
It was that difference that troubled my soul.

Yet, I loved the people I served. I also loved my students.

Which brings me back to Scarborough’s position. Is he
correct in blaming liberals for the radical conservatism of people like Stephen
Miller. Was it the Liberal professors and students at Duke University who
motivated Miller to formulate opinions that were a reaction to their attacks?

I’m reluctant to impute liberals for Miller’s alt-right sentiments.
If so, I could charge black nationalist views to white conservatives. If espousing
extreme opinions is a corollary of being rejected by those on the other side,
there is reason to expect even greater opposition among people representing the
extreme left.

The failure of Scarborough’s assessment is in how it disregards
the role privilege plays in articulating conservative conclusions. Miller, and
people like him, impute positions aimed at maintaining the status quo. They are
rooted in class, racial, gender and heterosexual privilege in ways that assume
the continued role of the dominant culture.

Scarborough’s rant reminded me of the frustration I carried
after reading “Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American”, the controversial
book written by Richard J. Hernstein and Charles Murray (1994). The book left
me enraged by the assumptions of its authors.

Hernstein and Murray argued that intelligence is inherited,
and that blacks are poor because they are not as smart as whites. It is true
there was more to the book, but the conclusion formulated in the third and fourth
chapters made it difficult to concede the significance of the remaining
chapters.

The book reminded me of the long history of using science to
justify racism. It took me back to Darwin's “The Origin of Species by Means of
Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life”. Darwin is among the scientist credited with creating “scientific racism”.

Darwin applied evolutionary ideas of natural selection not
only in constructing views of animal development, but also to the development
of human races. He reflected on natural selection in regard to the killing of
indigenous people in Australia by the British. He wrote of blacks as “savage
races” in a category comparable to gorillas. He advocated against social programs
for the poor and weak because they permitted the least desirable people to
survive.

‘The Bell Curve” was a distressing reminder of how science
has been used to defend racial privilege based on notions of genetic
advantages. A further examination of conservatism reveals the defiance people
have with many of its assumptions. Scarborough seeks to separate radical
conservatism from his brand of political thought, but both are rooted in suppositions
that embrace privilege as a construction of natural selection.

Millers conservatism is built on a biologically invalid
conception of race. It is built on a foundation that embraces the notion of a
cognitive elite. It builds a public policy agenda that assumes genetic
superiority. It embraces views of natural selection that allows space for the
weak to perish while the strong prosper due to their selection as the more
powerful race.

My appraisal of my angst with conservatism results in a
conclusion that intensifies my position. My issue isn’t the politics of
conservatism. It’s the suppositions that ground its notions. It’s the range of condescension
woven throughout its public policies that intensifies my disdain. It’s a long
history of research used to support superiority that irks my awareness.

Scarborough’s tirade defied my liberal positions. Could it
be that liberals, like me, are responsible in creating alt-right conservatives?
Would it be better if liberals took more time to listen and modify their
position? Have liberals, like me, been seduced into embracing a narrowly
defined position, and, if so, is the truth found somewhere in the middle?

There may be an element of truth in those questions, but how
can you fathom listening when doing so involves embracing genetic inferiority?

How do you endorse a conservative agenda that negates the
construction of institutions that empowers a set population at the expense of
others? How do you invalidate the challenges of institutionalized racism and
consequences of generations of sexism?

Scarborough may have a point, but it’s one framed from a
place of privilege. People like Miller are angry because their privilege is
being questioned. Moving further to the right is not the fault of liberals, it’s
the result of his unwillingness to concede his privilege.

Total Pageviews

Carl W. Kenney II

Carl was named the best serious columnist of 2011 by the North Carolina Press Association for his work with the News & Observer's community paper The Durham News and in 2016 by the Missouri Press Association for his columns in the Columbia Missourian. He is a columnist with the News & Observer and Co-Executive Producer of "God of the Oppressed" an upcoming documentary film on black liberation theology. He is a former Adjunct Professor at the University of Missouri - School of Journalism and Adjunct Instructor at Duke University, the Center for Documentary Studies. He received his Bachelor’s degree in Journalism from the University of Missouri-Columbia. He furthered his education at Duke University and attained a Master of Divinity. He was named a Fellow in Pastoral Leadership Development at the Princeton Theological Seminary on May 14, 2005. He is a freelance writer with his commentary appearing in The Washington Post, Religious News Services,The Independent Weekly and The Durham Herald-Sun. Carl is the author of two novels: “Preacha’ Man” and the sequel “Backslide”.
He has led congregations in Missouri and North Carolina